ce many of the buildings were finished in so hasty and
imperfect a manner, that under the succeeding reign, they were preserved
with difficulty from impending ruin. [65] But while they displayed the
vigor and freshness of youth, the founder prepared to celebrate the
dedication of his city. [66] The games and largesses which crowned the
pomp of this memorable festival may easily be supposed; but there is one
circumstance of a more singular and permanent nature, which ought
not entirely to be overlooked. As often as the birthday of the city
returned, the statute of Constantine, framed by his order, of gilt wood,
and bearing in his right hand a small image of the genius of the place,
was erected on a triumphal car. The guards, carrying white tapers, and
clothed in their richest apparel, accompanied the solemn procession as
it moved through the Hippodrome. When it was opposite to the throne of
the reigning emperor, he rose from his seat, and with grateful reverence
adored the memory of his predecessor. [67] At the festival of the
dedication, an edict, engraved on a column of marble, bestowed the title
of Second or New Rome on the city of Constantine. [68] But the name of
Constantinople [69] has prevailed over that honorable epithet; and after
the revolution of fourteen centuries, still perpetuates the fame of its
author. [70]

[Footnote 64: Codinus (Antiquitat. p. 8) affirms, that the foundations
of Constantinople were laid in the year of the world 5837, (A. D. 329,)
on the 26th of September, and that the city was dedicated the 11th
of May, 5838, (A. D. 330.) He connects those dates with several
characteristic epochs, but they contradict each other; the authority of
Codinus is of little weight, and the space which he assigns must appear
insufficient. The term of ten years is given us by Julian, (Orat. i. p.
8;) and Spanheim labors to establish the truth of it, (p. 69-75,) by
the help of two passages from Themistius, (Orat. iv. p. 58,) and of
Philostorgius, (l. ii. c. 9,) which form a period from the year 324
to the year 334. Modern critics are divided concerning this point of
chronology and their different sentiments are very accurately described
by Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, tom. iv. p. 619-625.]

[Footnote 65: Themistius. Orat. iii. p. 47. Zosim. l. ii. p. 108.
Constantine himself, in one of his laws, (Cod. Theod. l. xv. tit. i.,)
betrays his impatience.]

[Footnote 66: Cedrenus and Zonaras, faithful to the mode of